Tican v. TIC Travel Insurance Coordinators Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1584

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Georgeta Tican

Applicant

-and-

TIC Travel Insurance Coordinators Ltd., KLM Airlines and Delta Air Lines Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: October 28, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1584
Indexed as: Tican v. TIC Travel Insurance Coordinators Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Georgeta Tican, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to contracts because of place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It has to do with how the applicant was allegedly treated when trying to enforce terms of a travel insurance policy.

2Although it is not clear from the story set out in the Application what the respondent airlines might have had to do with this, they are nonetheless named as respondents.

3The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The NOID directs the applicant to provide her submissions on whether the Tribunal has the authority to deal with any alleged conduct on the part of the respondent airlines. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over contractual issues arising in federal undertakings.

4The applicant’s submissions do not address the constitutional issue. Rather, they explain that a concurrent complaint in the federal human rights system is pending and that the applicant added the airlines as respondents on the advice of a lawyer.

5For the following reasons I conclude that the Tribunal has no authority to deal with any alleged discrimination on the part of the respondent airlines. By virtue of s.92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c.3 (U.K.) the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over “Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province”. It is well established that this includes exclusive federal jurisdiction to regulation the field of aviation, and that aviation in turn includes regulation of airlines (see: Air Canada v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board), 1997 CanLII 361 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 581). From this it follows that the respondents fall within federal constitutional jurisdiction. As a result the Tribunal has no authority to deal with the alleged conduct of these respondents.

order

6The Application is dismissed as against the respondents KLM Airlines and Delta Air Lines Inc.